Segregated Britain? The real segregation is this (pt.2)

In my view the description ‘white flight’ wrongly ascribes a racial motive for people moving away from areas where ethnic minorities have grown to become a substantial number of people or even a majority. It is not the race or colour of the skin of people living in an area which is driving this phenomenon. It is the pronounced cultural differences between members of the community, that have been encouraged and entrenched by the political class as it pursued its own nefarious agenda to dilute and erode the sense of nationhood as part of a wider political agenda.

Although there are plenty of differences within a population that shares the same race, ethnic characteristics, heritage, values and way of life, these were not sufficient to enable the undermining of the nation state, as part of the political objective of developing a world order, where populations that are bound together by their shared similarities and values have strong enough cohesion to reject and resist what the politicians want.

Whenever I have lived overseas I conformed to the norms of the community I became part of. Many migrants to these shores have done the same thing and where that integration has happened we don’t see this ‘white flight’ phenomenon. We see relaxed people where aspirations, values and language are the same, resulting in cohesion.

Conversely, where people have come here and transplanted their own cultural norms that are alien to the community, we see a lack of cohesion. The politicians are to blame for actively seeking and encouraging this. It comes as no surprise to find the left wing, pro-immigration ‘think tank’ DEMOS claiming that a ‘retreat’ of white Britons from areas where minorities live is limiting cultural integration. As usual, in a cynical effort to distort the findings and perpetuate the political agenda they have actively been in involved in crafting, they deny the reality which is that the refusal of some migrants to integrate culturally coupled with their desire to create a cultural colony, is actually the cause of increasing segregation.

How many times have we been ordered by the political class to ’embrace’ the changes being forced on the community, with the implicit assertion that failure to do so denotes you as xenophobic or racist? How many times have we witnessed neighbourhoods become fragmented because these differences are being aggressively entrenched by an arriving migrant minority that demands acceptance of their alien culture being transplanted into the community? How many times have we seen the arriving migrants seek out people who share their cultural heritage and values so they do not have to integrate or conform to the societal norms of the host community, resulting in the ghetto phenomenon? How many times, when this has happened, have we then been instructed by the political class to ‘celebrate’ this, despite the lack of consent for the transformation and the unwelcome and undesired impacts this has on the community? Why is it acceptable for an aggressive cultural supremacy to be implemented by an arriving migrant population, yet any attempt to preserve the cultural norms of the host community is considered wrong and unacceptable?

What has never made stood up to any scrutiny is the notion that migrants want to come here for a better life, when on arrival they do all they can to maintain the same life they supposedly sought to leave behind them in their home country. It is entirely understandable that people draw the conclusion the new arrivals have not come to enrich our community and become part of what made this country attractive in the first place, as the political class claims, but only to take economic advantage of what has been built up over generations while rejecting our values, language and norms.

The blame for this ‘white flight’ which is so exercising the politicians, and the breakdown in community cohesion which suits their aims, has to be firmly laid at the door of the concept of multiculturalism, advanced by the likes of DEMOS, the Labour party, and legions of politicians across Europe.

Having a multiethnic community is fine and can work wonderfully well. Often it is integrated migrants who are most vocal alongside us in opposing the contemptible behaviour of the political class as it seeks to dismantle what made this country attractive and proud in the first place. Where people come together as a community regardless of colour and race we do not see the problems that arise in areas where part of the community chooses to emphasise and reinforce pronounced differences and seeks separation from the host community due to a desire for their imported culture to have supremacy – and seeks to strengthen that separation by bringing more people from their country of origin to build a rival community.

It is not a racial or colour issue, it is to do with culture. The political class actively pursued this without seeking the consent of the British people. If I had refused to conform to the cultural norms of my hosts overseas I would not have been welcome and encouraged to leave. So why is it wrong for Britons to apply the same conditions and make clear to migrants that if they will not conform to our norms and be part of an integrated community they have no place living here? Oh yes, because the political class says so, as it doesn’t fit in with their objectives.

Don’t be angry and frustrated with those who have been able to come here and build a rival community steeped in their own culture and values. Be angry and frustrated with the political class that allowed it, encouraged it, stamped on dissent against it, and sought to stigmatise those who refused to compromise their principles – and take action against them.

The real segregation in this country is that between the political class and bureaucrats, and we ordinary people who they abuse and treat with contempt.

When you use the words “British” and “Britons”, AM, you make it souns as if the entire kingdom is affected by all this. Wrong. Only England has been picked on by the politicians and their fellow traitors, while the ‘United’ Kingdom’s other nations are still virtually mono-racial and mono-cultural. Other than that, a faultless article.

“Our instinctive reaction has been that Britain is a relentlessly racist country bent on thwarting the lives of ethnic minorities, that the only decent policy is to throw open our doors to all and that those with doubts about how we run our multi-racial society are guilty of prejudice.”

This has much in common with climate change alarmists – if you start from an incorrect view of the ‘opposition’ the remedy you come up with to change their minds will be wrong too.(And that is to overlook the motivation for wanting to change other people…)

For climate change alarmists their view is that sceptics are a well funded, well connected denial machine and well funded (by taxpayers) and well connected policy advocates and scientists must to combat that phantom.

For immigration and multi-culturalists it is that Britons are racist and must be smothered in the delights foreign cultures have to offer. But even so, David Goodhart cannot totally give up his belief in social engineering:

“I still believe that large-scale immigration has made Britain livelier and more dynamic than it would otherwise have been. I believe, too, that this country is significantly less racist than it once was.”

All he can offer as evidence is a belief that it was the right thing to do but has now gone too far.

I find it grimly ironic that the very same voices united in their condemnation of Assad in Syria, remain ‘deafeningly’ silent when the same attitudes, hatred and ideology manifest itself on the streets here in Britain.

Civil unrest, is only streets away and like as not, the political class will condemn it and remain silent about the original causes and who actually encouraged it in the first place.

Don’t be angry and frustrated with those who have been able to come here and build a rival community steeped in their own culture and values.

And when they seek to kill us and maim us – we have to turn the other cheek?

A fairly good post AM, yet you too danced around that word [Islam] again though, did you not? Very much in keeping and playing from the same ‘hymnal’ playing the very same notes along with the cultural Marxists, those multi-culturalist societal engineers, those that you seek to attack.

I have never danced around ‘Islam’ or Islamism Edward. It wasn’t a factor for this post for the point I was making.

When you consider Indians in Southall, Poles in Boston, Chinese in Southwark and Nigerians in Peckham have all transformed those areas culturally and led to a degree of ‘white flight’, why single out Muslims?

Somalis, Nigerians, Bangladeshi, Kashmiri, Gujarati, Rajastani, Punjabi a common theme is Islam.
However, I regularly visit China Town in Manchester – I do not feel intimidated at night, as I do in Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Newham and Hackney and I certainly would not visit Glodwick at night.
Certain areas of Southall are Indian and I don’t feel intimidated there either. IMHO, to me the Poles are not the problem in Boston – you have to look a bit further east and anyway I grew up with many Polish lads – they hold no fears for me.

No, multi-ethnic cannot work. The genetic make-up of anybody outside of Europe is overpowering to those of European decent i.e. blue eyes. With multi-ethnic cultures a dilution of the traits that single the individual out from being from another culture or land are gone.

Check out Seal and Hedi Klum to see what I mean. If this is your idea of a unified Britain then we only have one generation left and it’s non-reversible.

“Why is it acceptable for an aggressive cultural supremacy to be implemented by an arriving migrant population, yet any attempt to preserve the cultural norms of the host community is considered wrong and unacceptable?”

Two excellent articles AM.

To be fair to Edward, I think it is important to make the point that Muslims are the most dangerous example of the problem you are describing. The obsessive devotion to Islam seems to be the driving force behind the aggressive and intolerant behaviour of its followers.

I am particularly concerned at the unstoppable growth of Islam in England and other Western “democracies”, in large part because loyalty to Islam and fellow Muslims appears to trump the truth and doing “the right thing”. Islam also seems to bring with it a terrifying form of gangsterism to ensure its followers keep in line.

Maybe you can reassure me that I am overstating the problem? But I find much of Robert Spencer’s writing convincing.